nanog mailing list archives
Re: Did Internap lose all clue?
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:16:13 -0500
On 10/20/2011 8:08 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
Yes, it's possibly foolish to allocate x.y.z.0 or .255. But saying that that x.y.z.0 is *not* *capable* of representing an interface is demonstrating a dangerous lack of knowledge. There's several totally legal .0 and .255 addresses in each /22 subnet, and yes people *do* use /22 subnets. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with "Don't use .0 or .255,Yeah, I quit using them in '98ish and never bothered trying again. Was annoying the first time I realized the dialup user wasn't working because they had a .0 or .255 address from the pool.
Of course, I've had more calls from people asking why they don't work when they aren't supposed to work. :)
because there are *still* people out there who don't understand CIDR and will hassle you about it"... What really sucks is when the CIDR-challenged people are hassling you indirectly via the code they write... ;)
Yeah, but at 2-4 addresses per /24, I really can't be bothered to yell at the coders. Easier to just not use them.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue?, (continued)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Richard Irving (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? manny (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Brant I. Stevens (Oct 20)
- RE: Did Internap lose all clue? Darrell Hyde (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Bruce Pinsky (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Jack Bates (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Jack Bates (Oct 20)
- Re: Did Internap lose all clue? Matt Buford (Oct 21)